How does the 12mm compare to the 17mm?
41290
I have both lenses and prefer the 12MM. It is faster, and produces a sharper image. I especially like the depth of field markers that appear when the focus ring is snapped back into manual mode. I use both, and favor the 17MM when I want to carry the camera in my pocket, but tend to keep the 12MM on the camera most of the time.
41291
I own both. In terms of sharpness and optical quality, they are about the same. As already mentioned, the difference in focal lengths is significant. The 12/2.0 is more useful for landscapes and shooting in confined spaces. The 17/1.8 is better for street photography and portraiture.
41292
The 12mm is the equivalent of a 24mm wideangle on 35mm film camera, which is pretty wide and more useful if you like wideangle; and it is very high quality. The fast 17mm (there's an f2.8 too) is probably pretty good too, but it's more of a wide-standard lens. Different focal length is probably the major difference in practice.
41293
I do not have the 17mm to compare but like to state that I love my 12mm for its sharpness and dual focusing modes. SJ answered
41294
the angle-of-view has already been answered. Both lenses, in addition to the other M.Zuiko fixed focal-length lenses, offer more digital info than a human eye can resolve. I own the 12mm, 45mm and 75mm m. Zuikos as well as two Panasonic zooms. I can print beautiful 16 x 20 prints that are easily as "crisp" as files from my old Canon EOS system. I'm a retired photographer (44 yrs.)/photo instructor (29 yrs.) who the learned the craft in the darkroom, and made a relatively smooth transition to digital. In my studied opinion, pick the one that lets you capture an image the way "you see." The quality is there for both. Finally, both lenses at f/1.8 and f/2.0, offer essentially the same light-gathering ability. I would suggest the 12mm because it greatly increases your creative options with wide-angle. How you "see."
1830149
Go with the 17. Will have plenty of room, plus some for other misc items and still not feel bulky
330875
Perhaps Peter means the 18-200VR. Peter, the 12mm gives about 25-35% more viewing angle, to my eye.
931353
It is just a little bit thinner (a few mm) but that's not a big deal. The main difference is that the 20 mm lens is better optically.
466983
I don't have the 200mm, so can't compare. I have no complaints on this lens, if that helps.
532280
I do not have the 24mm prime. I do have the 32mm prime. I think the 16 70 compares favorably not that I have done any testing. It is a great lens and have a hard time using anything else.
523657
I have been using the 24-70 2.8 for a while now on my 7D and I find that the range is not optimal for outdoors. I can get some great shots at 70 mm, but at 24 mm the shots just are not wide enough - close but not there. Upgrading (or downgrading) to the 17-55 2.8 IS USM this week. I think it will be a way better lens for a cropped sensor camera. It will allow me to get some landscape shots that I was just not able to achieve with the 24-70.Side note: tried the 24-70 2.8 on my friend's 5D MII and it was awesome - It would be my lens of choice if I had a full frame camera.
582401
I used to have those 2 lenses and moving to a single 18-200mm gave me a whole new experience in photography. No more spending times switching lenses on-the-go, which saves me from missing shots and protects the camera a little further (in case you would need to switch lenses outside, like in a beach or something -- my case).
354393
I bought it to replace the 14-42 that was damaged. 17mm is included in the range of the original lens. It also is f2.8 over the f3.5.GeneK
2198742
What do you shoot? Both are great! I think the 30mm is a bit sharper, but it is tighter. The 19mm great for landscapes because it is sharp all the way to the corners! Both lenses are great value, depends on what you shoot.
1625584
The difference is 1mm wider on the wide end and doesn't have as wide of a zoom range (8mm less on the long end). In exchange for a very limited zoom range, you get 1 stop more light to your sensor.I have the 11-16mm and wouldn't trade it for the 12-24 unless I needed more overlap with my other lenses. As it is right now, I have nice coverage from 11-200 with only small gaps (16-17mm and 55-70mm) and a constant f/2.8 or better.
346742
Its a faster lens and a different field of view. Two different lenses. The 25mm focuses faster in dim light. If you're trying to figure out which to buy, first figure out which FOV you prefer. Both are excellent. Also check out the oly 17mm, another fine lens if you are considering the 20mm, but with a slighty wider FOV, and focuses instantly.
931352
As far as I can tell they are the same housing size. This one has upgraded optics compared to the 16mm.
1354146
It depends on how close you're talking about. 17mm isn't extremely wide like say a 10mm but it should unless you're standing really close to them. With any focal length running in that range you're still apt to get the occasional focal distortion such as rounded edges. To me it's still maybe my favorite lens that I've ever owned.
327659
I would say the 20lb one is better for the .40 caliber for sure. The 17lb one is more for the 9mm.
768837
Depends if you plan on ever switching to full frame. I find 17-18mm the widest I normally go since I shoot people and too wide isn't flattering. If you are shooting landscapes then any of these will do since you want to stop down the aperture anyway. I love the 18-35mm sigma, I get the isolation from the blur that I need to create my artistic images. I never take it off anymore.
1239751
This lens has a wider view so you see more. It's a little heaver and bulkier than the 85mm, but you can stand much closer to an object that you want to have in focus (12 inches) as opposed to the 85mm (about 3-4 feet).